Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Swapan Kumar Das vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 30 August, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
30.08.2018
Ct. No.13
S/L No.39
KS
W. P. 13861 (W) of 2018
Sri Swapan Kumar Das
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Mr. Ranjan Saha
..... For the Petitioner
Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee
Mr. Fazlul Haque
..... For the K.M.C.
Mr. Surojit Sengupta
Mr. Avra Mazumder
Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal
Mr. Moinak Bose
..... For the respondent No.9
Mr. Ankit Sureka ..... For the respondent No.8 Ms. Munmun Tewary Mr. Sudipto Ponda ..... For the State Report as called for by the order dated August 6, 2018 filed in Court be taken on record.
Learned advocate appearing for the Corporation circulates a copy of the report amongst the learned advocates appearing for the private parties in Court.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.8 submits that, his client was not served with the copy of the writ petition deliberately. His client has been mis‐described in the cause‐title so as to ensure that, the copy of the writ petition is not served upon his client. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, there are at least four Civil Suits pending between the private parties. He invites the attention of the Court to the pleadings of the writ petition and submits that, there are no pleadings with regard to such suits.
Corporation and the private respondent no.9 are represented. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner admits that, there are four civil suits pending between the private parties.
The writ petition does not speak of any proceeding pending between the private parties at all.
2
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to file supplementary affidavit. The same be taken on record. It appears from the Supplementary Affidavit that, there are Title Suit No.286 of 2018, Title Suit No.314 of 2018, Title Suit No.366 of 2018 and Title Suit No.575 of 2018 pending before the Civil Court at Alipore.
The Supplementary Affidavit was not filed on the date when the writ petition was entertained. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner also did not bring such material fact to the notice of the Court. To my mind the pendency of the civil suits, the parameters of such civil suits, the orders passed by the Civil Court, if any, are material facts which ought to be brought to the notice of the writ court, for the writ court to take a decision as to whether it wants to exercise discretion in admitting the writ petition or not. The writ petitioner, in the instant case has failed to place such material facts before the Court. The petitioner must be held to be guilty of suppression of material facts notwithstanding the filing of the supplementary affidavit today. On August 6, 2018, when the writ petition was entertained, such material facts were not placed before the Court.
In such circumstances, no further interference is called for in the present writ petition. It appears that, the partnership firm in which the petitioner is a partner is the plaintiff in the four title suits before the civil court. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs in the four title suits will not proceed with such suits till such time, costs assessed at Rs.5,000/‐ each in respect of each of those four title suits are paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata within a period of fortnight from date. In the event the costs as directed are not paid, the learned Judge in seisin of the four suits are at liberty to dismiss such suits upon returning a finding that, the costs as directed by this order have not been paid.
W. P. 13861 (W) of 2018 is disposed of.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)